1 APHC010404082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2116/2024 Between: G Vinod Kumar ...PETITIONER AND D Hymavathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DASANI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.193 of 2024 in FCOP No.74 of 2023 on the file of Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the FCOP No.74 of 2023. The present impugned I.A.No.193 of 2024 was filed by therespondent herein before the trial Court under Section 24 of 2 Hindu Marriage Act seeking to grant interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.2,00,000/- towards legal expenses. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed Divorce O.P. petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, but he deserted the respondent herein due to bad vices and she is depending on her old aged parents. He totally neglected her and he is working in Infosys and getting Rs.72,000/- as salary and at present he is working in another company and getting Rs.1,50,000/-, having movable and immovable properties. They blessed with one son by name Sal Krishna, studying UKG and she is paying Rs.10,000/- school fee. Hence, the respondent filed IA N.No.193 of 2024 seeking to grant Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance and also legal expenses. 4. Counter filed by the petitioner herein in the said I.A No.193 of 2024 denying the averments made in the petition and admitted marriage and birth of son. From the date of marriage the respondent is not having love and affection towards the petitioner, frequently visiting her parents house and she is very dominating nature and fond of luxuries and failed to give respect to the petitioner and his family members and he suffered a lot, several panchayaths held, she has taken all her belongings and left the house and she threatened him, when he attempted to see his son. It is further stated that in the year 2017, several panchayaths held, but she failed to listen. Hence, more than 5 years she is residing separately. As there is no possibility of reunion, the petitioner herein filed the divorce petition. It is stated that the present application itself is not maintainable, hence prays to dismiss the petition. 3 5. After considering the material on record and on considering the submissions of both the counsels, the trial Court has allowed the said I.A No.193 of 2024 and directed the respondent therein to pay interim maintenance @ Rss.10,000/- to the petitioner/respondent herein from the date of petition towards her maintenance till final disposal of the FCOP No.74 of 2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Heard Sri D. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent appeared in-person. 7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order of the trial Court is highly erroneous, contrary to law and against the probabilities of the case. He submits that the trial Court Judge grievously erred in allowing the petition filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955 for interim maintenance. He submits that the Respondent herein filed a petition for interim maintenance before the Hon'ble Family Court with the malafide intention to harass the Petitioner herein by delaying the disposal of the divorce petition. Further, the Salary Certificate submitted by the Respondent herein to the Trial Court is old Certificate and at present the Petitioner herein is not working in that company. The Petitioner herein is now private employee in private school and now he is getting salary Rs. 10,000/- per month. He submits that the petitioner has no means for his livelihood sufficiently to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month as ordered by the trial court. The order of trial court to pay maintenance to the respondent herein would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner herein and it would cause him irreparable loss. Hence the order is 4 illegal. He submits that as petitioner has no means of his livelihood, he could not comply with the order of maintenance consequently, it will lead to his arrest and violation of his fundamental right of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence before making the order of interim maintenance, procedure established by law, must be followed. 8. Perused the material on record 9. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed by the trial Court that, the petitioner/respondent filed divorce petition and the respondent/petitioner is entitled for maintenance pending disposal of the main petition as contemplated U/s.24 of Hindu Marriage Act and also filed salary certificate to show that the petitioner herein is drawing Rs.72,000/- per month. However, as contended by the respondent/petitioner that, the petitioner/respondent has not filed assets and liabilities affidavit in spite of directions by the court, but filed counter stating that petitioner herein is dominating nature, wants luxury life, and on her own, left him by taking her belongings. But some evidence is needed to prove his counter. Moreover, it is only interim maintenance petition pending disposal of the divorce petition. 10. Now, in the present case, it is the contention of the petitioner herein that the trial Court ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Rule 60 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990. Further the trial Court has not directed the respondent to give evidence orally and moreover no evidence is recorded and no exhibits are marked as per Rule 60 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the 5 petitioner that the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it as per the Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 21B of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 11. Rule 60 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders 1990, extracted below: 60. (33) Proof of facts by affidavit:- Any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall unless otherwise provided by these, rules, or ordered by the court, be provided by affidavit but the Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded, and exhibits marked, in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibits shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment. 12. It is pertinent to mention here Sub sections (1) and (2) of 21 B of Hindu Marriage Act, which extracted hereunder: 21B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act. — (1)The trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2)Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent. 13.. The respondent herein is appeared before this Court in-person. She is aged about 38 years and MCA Graduate. She stated that her son is living with her. It appears that the minor son is in the company of the respondent and the petitioner is seeking divorce and that, the court has granted some maintenance pending disposal of the main case. With regard to the legal expenses, it will be decided at the time of disposal of main FCOP by the trial Court 6 14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, the trial Court has rightly concluded and disposed of the I.A. expeditiously and has followed the procedure contemplated under Law and therefore does not warrant interference by this Court. 15. Finding no merit in the instant Civil Revision Petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _______________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: -02-2025 Gvl 7 THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO C.R.P.No.2116 of 2024 Date: 28.02.2025 Gvl . 8